A conjoint analysis of factors influencing American and Taiwanese college students' preferences for people with disabilities

Rehabilitation Psychology

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 195-201

  Wang, Ming Hung ^a   Thomas, Kenneth R ^b   Chan, Fong ^b   Cheing, Gladys ^c  

^a NATIONAL KAOHSIUNG NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COLLEGE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; ETHNIC DIFFERENCE; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INJURY SCALE; JOB ANALYSIS; MALE; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; STUDENT; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 0042337277     PISSN: 00905550     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0090-5550.48.3.195     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Abroms, K., & Kodera, T. L. (1979). Acceptance hierarchy of handicaps: Validation of Kirk's statement, "Special education begins where medicine stops." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 24-29.
2. American Marketing Association. (1992). Conjoint analysis: A guide for designing and interpreting conjoint studies. Chicago: Author.
3. Antonak, R. F. (1980). Psychometric analysis of the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale, Form O. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 23, 169-175.
4. Asher, N. W. (1973). Manipulating attraction toward the disabled: An application of the similarity-attraction model. Rehabilitation Psychology, 20, 156-164.
5. Bird, C. (1979). What women want. New York: Simon & Schuster.
6. Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York: Wiley.
7. Chan, F., Hedl, J., Parker, H. J., Chan, T. N., & Yu, B. (1988). Differential attitudes of Chinese students toward people with disabilities: A cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 34, 267-273.
8. Chan, F., Wang, M.-H., Thomas, K. R., Chan, C. C. H., Wong, D., Lee, G., & Lui, K. (2002). Conjoint analysis in rehabilitation counseling research. Rehabilitation Education, 16, 179-195.
9. Cheung, F. M. (1990). People against the mentally ill: Community opposition to residential treatment facilities. Community Mental Health Journal, 26, 205-212.
10. Dooley, D. M., & Gliner, J. A. (1989). Perception of disability labels: Effect of attitude and stimulus presentation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 34, 259-270.
11. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
12. Gilfoyle, E. M., & Gliner, J. A. (1985). Attitudes toward handicapped children: Impact of an educational program. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 5, 27-41.
13. Gottlieb, J., & Gottlieb, B. W. (1977). Stereotypic attitudes and behavioral intentions toward handicapped children. American Journal of the Mentally Deficient, 82, 65-71.
14. Grand, S. A., Bernier, J. E., & Strohmer, D. C. (1982). Attitudes toward disabled persons as functions of social context and specific disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 27, 165-174.
15. Green, P. E. (1974). On the design of choice experiments involving multifactor alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 61-68.
16. Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978), Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103-123.
17. Greenhalgh, L., & Neslin, S. A. (1981). Conjoint analysis of negotiator preferences. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25, 301-327.
18. Hammond, K. R., McClelland, G. H., & Mumpower, J. (1980). Human judgment and decision making. New York: Praeger Publishers.
19. Hanna, W. J., & Rogovsky, B. (1993). Women with disabilities: Two handicaps plus. In M. Nagler (Ed.), Perspectives on disability: Text and readings on disability (2nd ed., pp. 109-119). Palo Alto, CA: Health Markets Research.
20. Jackman, M. R., & Muha, M. J. (1984). Education and intergroup attitudes: Moral enlightenment, superficial democratic commitment, or ideological refinement? American Sociological Review, 49, 751-769.
21. Krantz, D. H., & Tversky, A. (1971). Conjoint measurement analysis of composition rules in psychology. Psychological Review, 78, 151-169.
22. Leung, P. (1990). Asian Americans and psychology: Unresolved issues. Journal of Training & Practice in Professional Psychology, 4, 3-13.
23. Livneh, H., & Antonak, R. (1994). Indirect methods of attitude measurement: Reply to Linkowski and Yuker. Rehabilitation Education, 8, 144-148.
24. Louviere, J. J. (1988). Analyzing decision making: Metric conjoint analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Louviere, J. J., & Timmermans, H. J. P. (1992). Testing the external validity of hierarchical conjoint analysis models of recreational destination choice. Leisure Sciences, 14, 179-194.
26. National Kaohsiung Normal University. (1996). Introduction to the Department of Special Education at National Kaohsiung Normal University. Kaohsiung, Taiwan: Author.
27. Nickerson, C. A. E., & McClelland, G. H. (1988). Extended axiomatic conjoint measurement: A solution to a methodological problem in studying fertility-related behaviors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 129-153.
28. Nickerson, C. A. E., McClelland, G. H., & Petersen, D. M. (1990). Solutions to some problems in the implementation of conjoint analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 22, 360-374.
29. Porwal, N. K., & Jain, R. K. (1985). Attitudinal similarity as factor of interpersonal attraction. Indian Psychological Review, 28, 24-29.
30. Reynolds, M. C., & Birch, J. W. (1977). Teaching exceptional children in all America's school. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
31. Richardson, S. A., & Ronald, L. (1977). The effect of a physically handicapped interviewer on children's expression of values toward handicap. Rehabilitation Psychology, 24, 211-218.
32. Schmelkin, L. P. (1982). Perceptions of disabilities: A multidimensional scaling approach. Journal of Special Education, 16, 161-177.
33. Schmelkin, L. P. (1984). Hierarchy of preferences toward disabled groups: A reanalysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 151-157.
34. Schmelkin, L. P. (1985). Dimensionality of disability labels. Rehabilitation Psychology, 30, 221-233.
35. Shamir, M., & Shamir, J. (1995). Competing values in public opinion: A conjoint analysis. Political Behavior, 17, 107-133.
36. Siller, J. (1976). Attitudes toward disability. In H. Rusalem & D. Malikin (Eds.), Contemporary vocational rehabilitation (pp. 67-79). New York: New York University Press.
37. SPSS. (1997). SPSS Conjoint 8.0. Chicago: Author.
38. Thurer, S. L. (1991). Women and rehabilitation. In R. P. Marinelli & A. E. Dell Orto (Eds.), The psychological & social impact of disability (3rd ed., pp. 32-38). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
39. Voeltz, L. M. (1980). Children's attitudes toward the amputee child. American Journal of the Mentally Deficient, 84, 455-464.
40. Wang, M.-H. (1998). Factors influencing preferences for persons with disabilities: A conjoint analysis and cross-cultural comparison. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin - Madison.
41. Weisel, A., & Florian, V. (1990). Same and cross-gender attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 35, 229-238.
42. Wilkie, W. L., & Pessemier, E. A. (1973). Issues in marketing's use of multi-attribute attitude models. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 428-441.
43. Wittink, D. R., & Cattin, P. (1989). Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. Journal of Marketing, 53, 91-96.
44. Yuker, H. E. (1988). Attitudes toward persons with disabilities. New York: Springer.